Referendum on Fiscal Treaty confirmed

nacho libre

K-9 wrote: »

Hmmm, in fairness to Martin and as an observer of Haughey and FF during the 80's referenda on Abortion and Divorce in particular, O'Cuiv is playing typical FF cute hoorism, ala Haughey. Martin has always been pro EU. To me O'Cuiv is playing Haughey political opportunism and feck principes and I'd say a political heave is first and foremost in his mind.

As Francis Urqhart would say, "You might well think that, I couldn't possibly comment"!

Was a leadership heave on his mind in 2002? Although I'm still inclined to believe if this move was really based on a set of convictions, what prevented him from speaking out against the Lisbon treaty? Why now? It certainly does smack of opportunism. He must envision by doing this he will capture anti-eu sentiment among a lot of the public, therefore resulting in FF gaining votes and at the same time bolstering his own chances of attaining the party leadership.

If so he has likely miscalculated, because we will be offered an inducement to pass the treaty by way of significant debt reduction, this move should persuade the public that voting yes is the right choice

K-9

nacho libre wrote: »

Was a leadership heave on his mind in 2002? Although I'm still inclined to believe if this move was really based on a set of convictions, what prevented him from speaking out against the Lisbon treaty? Why now? It certainly does smack of opportunism. He must envision by doing this he will capture anti-eu sentiment among a lot of the public, therefore resulting in FF gaining votes and at the same time bolstering his own chances of attaining the party leadership.

If so he has likely miscalculated, because we will be offered an inducement to pass the treaty by way of significant debt reduction, this move should persuade the public that voting yes is the right choice

He comes from Galway, there's a reason Dana and Ganley picked Connaught/Ulster as European constituencies. Dana failed spectacularly General election wise, though succeeded for one term in the MEP election, Marian Harkin retaining the seat against all odds.

There's a strong Euro skeptic vote in Connaught/Ulster, going back to the late Neill T. Blaney in 1979? If I'm correcr, the first MEP elections?

Problem is, it doesn't transfer over to General Elections. Europe become a non issue. It isn't an issue to "make a mark on" as it were. Its forgotten come GE time.*

*Just stating the political reality.

nacho libre

K-9 wrote: »

He comes from Galway, there's a reason Dana and Ganley picked Connaught/Ulster as European constituencies. Dana failed spectacularly General election wise, though succeeded for one term in the MEP election, Marian Harkin retaining the seat against all odds.

There's a strong Euro skeptic vote in Connaught/Ulster, going back to the late Neill T. Blaney in 1979? If I'm correcr, the first MEP elections?

Problem is, it doesn't transfer over to General Elections. Europe become a non issue. It isn't an issue to "make a mark on" as it were. Its forgotten come GE time.*

*Just stating the political reality.

Perhaps with the recent opinion poll being very bad for FF, he feels he can make Martin's position untenable well before the next GE?

If so he is obviously hoping the next opinion poll shows no improvement for FF.

K-9

nacho libre wrote: »

Perhaps with the recent opinion poll being very bad for FF, he feels he can make Martin's position untenable well before the next GE?

If so he is obviously hoping the next opinion poll shows no improvement for FF.

If that is the case, O'Cuiv is hardly the answer?

If O'Cuiv is the answer, well, what is the question?

patwicklow

The next Technocrat?

Italian Mario Monti, former international adviser to Goldman Sachs, is the Technocrat Prime Minister of Italy.

Greek Lucas Papademos, former head of Greece's Central Bank/ worked closely with Goldman Sachs, is the Technocrat Prime Minister of Greece

Irish Peter Sutherland, former Attorney General of Ireland, former European Commissioner, presently Chairman of Goldman Sachs International . . .

If Ireland votes 'Yes', what are the odds on Peter Sutherland being appointed as Enda Kenny's replacement as Technocrat Taoiseach?

Behind you! Enda, Behind you!

Beware the brokers men . . .

[MOD]Save it for the Conspiracy Theories forum, please.[/MOD]

Dubhlinner

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Both sides made up awful shíte. Where are all the abortions and why have my wages not been reduced to €1 an hour. I just ignore the waffle and fearmongering and look for the facts when I make my choice.

It was different to that. It was the loony fringe chancers saying our minimum range would be reduced to silly amounts and we'd have compulsory abortions

You didn't have the likes of Declan Ganley or Sinn Fein claiming that - for them it was about sovereignty - so you can't say "the no side" made up awful sh|te and cite those examples

On the other hand the supposedly credible establishment parties ie "the yes side" all did pull the stability and jobs mantras...

meglome

Dubhlinner wrote: »

It was different to that. It was the loony fringe chancers saying our minimum range would be reduced to silly amounts and we'd have compulsory abortions

You didn't have the likes of Declan Ganley or Sinn Fein claiming that - for them it was about sovereignty - so you can't say "the no side" made up awful sh|te and cite those examples

On the other hand the supposedly credible establishment parties ie "the yes side" all did pull the stability and jobs mantras...

The problem is a treaty like Lisbon isn't sexy, for the most part it's an administrative exercise. It's difficult to 'sell' it, especially when the opposition is just making it up as they go along. Sure Coir were worse than Sinn Fein but it doesn't mean Sinn Fein weren't telling porkies too.

djpbarry

daltonmd wrote: »

We neglected our manufacturing base...

Ireland has a pretty well-developed, high-tech manufacturing base – current record levels of exports consist largely of computer hardware and pharmaceuticals, as well as food products.

daltonmd wrote: »

...we have a huge amount of people stuck in properties miles away from where work is.

“Stuck”? I don’t know about that. People wanted big houses with gardens – I don’t see that changing any time soon.

daltonmd wrote: »

You mean the Irish abroad might be tempted to come home?

I mean that in many cases, vacancies are likely to be filled by overseas applicants, be they Irish or non-Irish.

daltonmd wrote: »

Also how do you know there is a large number of relatively low skilled people unwilling to retrain?

There is quite a strong correlation between educational attainment and unemployment. While recent graduates are going to find it tough to get a foot in the door somewhere in the current climate, it’s going to be next to impossible for someone who doesn’t have a leaving cert, for example, or any relevant experience. There is data from the CSO to support this – it’s a little out of date, but I think a fresh module is due out later this year. Here in the UK, there is also evidence that large numbers of unemployed young people lack basic literacy and numeracy skills – they are essentially unemployable.

I think we're probably getting way off-topic at this stage.

nacho libre

nacho libre wrote: »

Perhaps with the recent opinion poll being very bad for FF, he [O'Cuiv] feels he can make Martin's position untenable well before the next GE?

If so he is obviously hoping the next opinion poll shows no improvement for FF.

I think O'Cuiv is taking a calculated gamble. He's always had designs on the FF leadership, and he's unlikely to get it within the time he's got left in his political career now unless there's some kind of leadership heave in the party, so he's rocking the boat. He has the backing of a strong Euro-sceptic constituency, and think he's banking on a "no" vote coming about and then being able to say "i told you so" when it does, and hoping for some level of support from within the ranks to pull away from what's being touted as the party concensus. Problem is, from the party's point of view, Michael Martin is about the safest bet that fianna fail could hope for at the moment, and better the devil you know..

He's played it cleverly though. I think the referendum will be lucky to pass in it's current form, unless Brussels sweetens the pot for us, which is essentially what he's calling for in order for him to be able to advocate a yes vote. If we get that and voter support looks to be in favour of ratification, he can slink back into the party ranks and say "well i can support it now because it's a better deal for ireland. I'd be interested to see if anyone sticks their head up above the parapet on this to support him in the next few days though. I doubt they will.

On another note, i finally got some clarification on the timeframes for any fiscal adjustments which would be made as part of any correction in our finances necessary under the treaty if we exceeded our 0.5% debt allowance post it's ratification. RTE radio ran a good piece on it yesterday evening which laid a lot of it out simply. It would mean that basically, a team of overseers (like the ones we have from the EU/IMF at the moment) would come in and agree a plan of action with our government, and sign off on our progress on it at various milestones throughout it's course. The reduction of any amount over the 0.5% limit would be by 1/20 of it's value per year. Basically, a 20-year plan to put your finances back in order and back within the limits, thats if they don't straighten themselves out in the meantime.

That seems like a fairly modest level of austerity, even in conjunction with our current difficulties, and on the face of it it would seem like a good way to ensure that people like paddy keep their finances on track, but i do think that we would need to get assurances that we can get out of our current difficulties first, before we sign over any more power to people who essentially don't care how tough things are on the ground here, as long as they don't have to pick up the bill.

Dubhlinner

meglome wrote: »

The problem is a treaty like Lisbon isn't sexy, for the most part it's an administrative exercise. It's difficult to 'sell' it, especially when the opposition is just making it up as they go along. Sure Coir were worse than Sinn Fein but it doesn't mean Sinn Fein weren't telling porkies too.

Look at what I'm quoting.

The poster said the no side (which presents as encompassing them as one group in its entirety) made claims about minimum wage and abortions. Fact is the "no side" did not exist as one entity. The more credible groups pushing for a no vote eg Sinn Fein and Ganley's campaign were not saying this.

On the other hand every group on the yes side did claim there would be jobs and stability, which obviously did not materialise.

Therefore it isn't fair to eqate the "no side" with what coir were saying. Its bloody obvious people didn't vote no for those reasons anyway. They were so over the top the vast majority of voters saw right throught them.

The only one on the yes side I can think of who was honest was Michael O'Leary who essentially said "we're f*cked, voting no risks making things worse so we might as well go along with it"

meglome

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Look at what I'm quoting.

The poster said the no side (which presents as encompassing them as one group in its entirety) made claims about minimum wage and abortions. Fact is the "no side" did not exist as one entity. The more credible groups pushing for a no vote eg Sinn Fein and Ganley's campaign were not saying this.

On the other hand every group on the yes side did claim there would be jobs and stability, which obviously did not materialise.

The point I'm making is the No side pretty much across the board told lies of some sort. Exports have been booming so you cannot say the yes vote didn't help jobs. But no jobs and stability could make up for the recession and property bubble bursting which happened before the Lisbon treaty came into law.

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Therefore it isn't fair to eqate the "no side" with what coir were saying. Its bloody obvious people didn't vote no for those reasons anyway. They were so over the top the vast majority of voters saw right throught them.

A blatant lie is a blatant lie. A rubbish slogan eg yes for jobs, is a rubbish slogan but it could be true. (and as I say above it really could be true). When you look at the reasons people voted No the first time the No side lies made up a good chuck so it obviously had an effect.

djpbarry

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Fact is the "no side" did not exist as one entity. The more credible groups pushing for a no vote eg Sinn Fein and Ganley's campaign were not saying this.

Sinn Féin claimed that voting yes to Lisbon would result in, among other things, lower wages and the "crushing" of family farms. Both were complete and utter nonsense. Don't even get me started on Libertas.

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

I think O'Cuiv is taking a calculated gamble. He's always had designs on the FF leadership, and he's unlikely to get it within the time he's got left in his political career now unless there's some kind of leadership heave in the party, so he's rocking the boat. He has the backing of a strong Euro-sceptic constituency, and think he's banking on a "no" vote coming about and then being able to say "i told you so" when it does, and hoping for some level of support from within the ranks to pull away from what's being touted as the party concensus. Problem is, from the party's point of view, Michael Martin is about the safest bet that fianna fail could hope for at the moment, and better the devil you know..

He's played it cleverly though. I think the referendum will be lucky to pass in it's current form, unless Brussels sweetens the pot for us, which is essentially what he's calling for in order for him to be able to advocate a yes vote. If we get that and voter support looks to be in favour of ratification, he can slink back into the party ranks and say "well i can support it now because it's a better deal for ireland. I'd be interested to see if anyone sticks their head up above the parapet on this to support him in the next few days though. I doubt they will.

On another note, i finally got some clarification on the timeframes for any fiscal adjustments which would be made as part of any correction in our finances necessary under the treaty if we exceeded our 0.5% debt allowance post it's ratification. RTE radio ran a good piece on it yesterday evening which laid a lot of it out simply. It would mean that basically, a team of overseers (like the ones we have from the EU/IMF at the moment) would come in and agree a plan of action with our government, and sign off on our progress on it at various milestones throughout it's course. The reduction of any amount over the 0.5% limit would be by 1/20 of it's value per year. Basically, a 20-year plan to put your finances back in order and back within the limits, thats if they don't straighten themselves out in the meantime.

That seems like a fairly modest level of austerity, even in conjunction with our current difficulties, and on the face of it it would seem like a good way to ensure that people like paddy keep their finances on track, but i do think that we would need to get assurances that we can get out of our current difficulties first, before we sign over any more power to people who essentially don't care how tough things are on the ground here, as long as they don't have to pick up the bill.

As far as I know, the Treaty rules aren't to apply to us until we're out of the troika program - we're in "exceptional circumstances".

So in our case we have 20 years starting from 2015 (assuming we are out of the program by then).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I know, the Treaty rules aren't to apply to us until we're out of the troika program - we're in "exceptional circumstances".

So in our case we have 20 years starting from 2015 (assuming we are out of the program by then)

Thank you. I must research that, but if it's the case, as i assume it is, then in conjunction with the reasonable "1/20 per year" readjustment terms i can see a whole lot more reason for people to vote yes than the current political scaremongering that's happening would likely give us.

On paper it might actually start to look like a solution for sensibly and sustainably managing our finances, albeit under threat of sanction, but isn't that a good thing? After all, we haven't shown ourselves to be exactly responsible with how we manage our spending so far, and we've been quite slow to push through any major change where it wasn't mandated by the troika.

Why are the yes camp not making more people aware of this so far?

AlmightyCushion

djpbarry wrote: »

Sinn Féin claimed that voting yes to Lisbon would result in, among other things, lower wages and the "crushing" of family farms. Both were complete and utter nonsense. Don't even get me started on Libertas.

They also said we'd have to increase our military spending as well, I could be wrong but I believe we've made cuts to our military spending in the past few years.

Scofflaw

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

They also said we'd have to increase our military spending as well, I could be wrong but I believe we've made cuts to our military spending in the past few years.

You're quite right:

The document also says the size of the Defence Forces may have to be cut more drastically than originally anticipated. The Government has already agreed to reduce the size of the Defence Forces from 10,500 to 10,000 to cut expenditure.

However, the implication of further savings required in the area is that serving numbers will reduce to 9,500.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Thank you. I must research that, but if it's the case, as i assume it is, then in conjunction with the reasonable "1/20 per year" readjustment terms i can see a whole lot more reason for people to vote yes than the current political scaremongering that's happening would likely give us.

On paper it might actually start to look like a solution for sensibly and sustainably managing our finances, albeit under threat of sanction, but isn't that a good thing? After all, we haven't shown ourselves to be exactly responsible with how we manage our spending so far, and we've been quite slow to push through any major change where it wasn't mandated by the troika.

Why are the yes camp not making more people aware of this so far?

Early days yet and both sides seem ill prepared at the minute. I'm sure they will focus on it as an answer to "austerity, austerity, austerity" calls from SF and the SWP.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

it is mad isn't it? If we reject the treaty, European markets will be thrown into disarray, no EU state will be able to borrow money and we will have to correct our finances overnight with the biggest austerity package ever but the Sinn Fein liars think voting no means rejecting austerity. If it wasn't so serious, I would laugh instead of cry.

FreudianSlippers

Godge wrote: »

it is mad isn't it? If we reject the treaty, European markets will be thrown into disarray, no EU state will be able to borrow money and we will have to correct our finances overnight with the biggest austerity package ever but the Sinn Fein liars think voting no means rejecting austerity. If it wasn't so serious, I would laugh instead of cry.

I'm genuinely curious, do SF believe the nonsense they are spouting about this; or is it a situation where they just need to stick to the party line and don't give a **** if this messes up the country?

For the 'no' side it's certainly a case of if we're right we're screwed and if we're wrong we're screwed. At least if you take the 'yes' implications at their worst, if we're wrong it's not great, but not the worst thing possible... and if we're right then it was a good decision.

Kinski

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the referendum will be lucky to pass in it's current form, unless Brussels sweetens the pot for us, which is essentially what he's calling for in order for him to be able to advocate a yes vote.

Why do you think it would be lucky to pass? For all this talk of septic tanks and protest votes, I think Irish voters are generally a fairly cautious, conservative bunch - choosing whether FF or FG (parties separated by little, even cosmetically) should govern has been excitement enough for them. Even the initial rejections of Nice and Lisbon can be interpreted as evidence that they find the prospect that tomorrow might be much different from today profoundly unsettling.

Here, we're being served up an offer that can't really be refused. IMO, this will end up passing comfortably.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

meglome

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I've heard Mary Lou basically saying that verbatim on the radio. I was just sitting there being very annoyed at their usual distraction techniques. The sad thing is it does work as the government tend to be piss poor at countering it.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious, do SF believe the nonsense they are spouting about this; or is it a situation where they just need to stick to the party line and don't give a **** if this messes up the country?

I think they are playing a long game of ingratiating themselves with the disillusioned voter and gradually putting themselves in a position to be the next best candidate for government in the (very real) situation which might arise if the FG/Lab government falls due to a political crisis or fails to show progress come the next election.

They've had their eye on 2016 for years now.

I said this a year or more ago, before the 2011 general election, and i still think it's the case. Unless a real, credible alternative in the form of a new, young political party that speaks a coherent message aimed at the people of modern, post celtic tiger ireland comes along soon, Sinn Fein will be in a very good position come the next election. A combination of there being nobody else left worth voting for by then and thousands of voters having been pushed further and further towards the low earnings bracket by continued austerity and failure of the other left wing options plays right into their hands.

Fianna Fail are going to be consigned to the opposition benches for a decade at least. FG and Labour are tied at the hip, and Labour in particular have already alienated a lot of the left wing vote that got them where they are by flip flopping on many of their election promises and climbing into bed with the right. What's left are basically a ragtag of left wing minority parties that don't say a lot to the middle earners in ireland.

Where are those disillusioned voters going to go if not to SF, especially as SF can promise whatever the hell they feel like with free reign right now and criticize the current administration till the cows come home?

Sinn Fein in power in the republic on the 100th year anniversary of the easter rising? It's scary how much damage that would cause our international reputation. You could forget about us being "Good Europeans" for a start...

Dr Galen

meglome wrote: »

I've heard Mary Lou basically saying that verbatim on the radio. I was just sitting there being very annoyed at their usual distraction techniques. The sad thing is it does work as the government tend to be piss poor at countering it.

I think you might be onto something here.....PB is there something that you need to tell us mate?

As for the real point, you can be assured that the SF Spin machine is running at full pelt, right now.

I spent quite some time this morning talking to pretty highly educated people here in the office who had bought into the SF/ULA type propaganda. Highly entertaining tbh, but hard work, as they made such a convincing case......until you actually start to really discuss it and then it seems that the support that some of my colleagues had for their position melted away.

K-9

Dr Galen wrote: »

I think you might be onto something here.....PB is there something that you need to tell us mate?

As for the real point, you can be assured that the SF Spin machine is running at full pelt, right now.

I spent quite some time this morning talking to pretty highly educated people here in the office who had bought into the SF/ULA type propaganda. Highly entertaining tbh, but hard work, as they made such a convincing case......until you actually start to really discuss it and then it seems that the support that some of my colleagues had for their position melted away.

Well wouldn't we all like not to pay the bondholders, tell the IMF/EU where to go, no austerity, either cuts or tax rises but the world just isn't as simple as that!

As time goes on in the debate the likes of Vincent Browne will tear them to shreds.

The proof that they don't really mean it is to look at the North. Apparently that is different, a contrived coalition with the British as paymasters. Every coalition is contrived and there'll always be paymasters, the markets or the IMF and/or the EU.

Kinski

Kinski wrote: »

Why do you think it would be lucky to pass? For all this talk of septic tanks and protest votes, I think Irish voters are generally a fairly cautious, conservative bunch............Here, we're being served up an offer that can't really be refused. IMO, this will end up passing comfortably.

I'm not so sure. You can dismiss it all you want, but the prospect of a protest vote is a very real thing, especially at the moment with political apathy and dissatisfaction on a high, and i dont' think there's enough of an understanding of what the treaty contains yet to create an imperative for a yes vote over and above anything the no camp can muddy the issue with.

I'm coming around to the view that it probably should pass, but that's not to say that it will. I dont' think it's being sold properly by the yes camp at the moment, and the no camp are throwing every emotive issue they can into the fray, which doesn't help. Granted it's still early days, but to counter the no camp's various "austerity, slavery, and hardship" arguments, all i've heard is threats, doomsdae scenarios, and bully tactics pushing EU and german points of view, along with the old "we have to be seen as good Europeans and do as we're told" from the yes camp. Like i posted before, i think the irish people are sick to the back teeth of all that, much more than they were when Nice and Lisbon were on the agenda, especially given the change in our circumstances since then.

I think if it's sold properly by our government here, as a treaty that, despite certainly being in Germany and the major financial powers interest, is actually designed for stopping us ever getting into this mess again, as well as helping us to gradually climb our way back out, it actually has a good chance of passing, provided that the EU keeps it's trap shut and lets us get on with the vote without treating us like kids. At the moment though, i think the consequences of a yes vote needs to be shown to the Irish people in a much better light before they are going to be comfortable enough to go with it.

Dr Galen wrote: »

As for the real point, you can be assured that the SF Spin machine is running at full pelt, right now

I wonder where they're getting the cartridges for that? Keep your eye on Aonghus O' Snodaigh. I'd say he'll be leaving Leinster house later on this evening with a load of 'em stuffed into his briefcase....

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

...Labour in particular have already alienated a lot of the left wing vote that got them where they are by flip flopping on many of their election promises and climbing into bed with the right.

Are you seriously trying to portray the Labour-FG coalition as "right-wing"? Relative to what? The SWP?!?

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to portray the Labour-FG coalition as "right-wing"? Relative to what? The SWP?!?

No, no i'm not. Not at all. But the fact is that the labour party's support in the last election was predominantly centre-Left voters, the FG vote was predominantly centre-Right voters, and a lot of the labour vote (the ones on the further left of their support base, the trade unionists, old LP supporters, etc) would have been appalled to see them join forces with FG given the fact that a lot of their core principals and policies are (were) completely at odds.

Many of those disenfranchised ex-labour voters will be looking for some place new to stick their "X" come the next election. Sinn fein is the next party along on the left after Labour that has any kind of mainstream credibility, (read: isn't a waste of a vote) and the kind of stuff that they are spouting at the minute speaks right to this exact group, by conscious decision.

That's the point i was making. That's not to say that the FG/Lab administration itself is right wing, just that the Labour leadership politicians got in bed with a party that's well on the right of their more hardcore supporters, and compromised heavily to do so, and there will be consequences for that from their grass roots in the next election.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.